I was, of course, referring to "fencing" in it's original meaning, of swordsmanship for comabt and deFENCE.

According to the mighty wiki:

Taijijian (simplified Chinese: &#22826;&#26497;&#21073;; traditional Chinese: &#22826;&#26997;&#21133;; pinyin: tàijíjiàn; literally "Taiji Sword") is a straight two-edged sword used in the training of the Chinese martial art Taijiquan. The straight sword, sometimes with a tassel and sometimes not, is used for upper body conditioning and martial training in traditional Taijiquan schools. The different family schools have various warmups, forms and fencing drills for training with the jian.

_________________________
See how well I block your punches with my jaw!!

I was, of course, referring to "fencing" in it's original meaning, of swordsmanship for comabt and deFENCE.

According to the mighty wiki:

Taijijian (simplified Chinese: &#22826;&#26497;&#21073;; traditional Chinese: &#22826;&#26997;&#21133;; pinyin: tàijíjiàn; literally "Taiji Sword") is a straight two-edged sword used in the training of the Chinese martial art Taijiquan. The straight sword, sometimes with a tassel and sometimes not, is used for upper body conditioning and martial training in traditional Taijiquan schools. The different family schools have various warmups, forms and fencing drills for training with the jian.

Wiki is not all accurate

There is a difference of Tai Ji and Tai Ji Quan

And Jian is a sword long before TaiJi using it

And Chinese "fencing", is not like European "fencing"

You cant label both as fencing when one is truly fencing and the other is JianShu

Jian Shu, Chinese "Sword Method", is not at all associated with the flowery and degraded "Tai Ji Sword displays

You cant label both as fencing when one is truly fencing and the other is JianShu

Jian Shu, Chinese "Sword Method", is not at all associated with the flowery and degraded "Tai Ji Sword displays

You are the one who initially cited/quoted wiki!

However, I now understand that you are basing your argument on the difference between Tai Ji and Tai Ji Quan (assuming the initial use in the OP and the advert recognised the difference as well).

OK, I understand your point as this: TJ is a aesthetic and degraded style based on original TJQ, utilising visual and auditory effects over practical useage. As such the swrods cannot be considered TJ swords because they are of a different quality/standard/type.

TJQ is a more practical style, utilising sword systems of a more practical nature, as well as utilising swords which were originally used in other styles, therefore are not wholly TJQ swords. As such, it is a misnomer to refer to them as TJ or TJQ swords.

Am I correct?

As for the "fencing" point, of course there are stylistic differences between Western and Chinese sword styles. However, not being familiar with the Chinese term(s) for opponent based combat swordplay, I chose to use a generic Western term.

My use of the term "fencing" is similar to the use of western terminology when describing Chinese swords as "sabres" etc (which would qualify it as "fencing"), or using the term "boxing", when referring to Chinese Boxing. I see no problem using the term "fencing" to mean swordplay against an opponent, especially when it is clear from the context that I do not refer to the different styles of western fencing.

So, does Jian-shu use combat/opponent-based sword-sparring? Also, is Jian-shu the same across different aspects of Wu Shu disciplines?

Edited by trevek (06/23/1109:26 AM)

_________________________
See how well I block your punches with my jaw!!

However, I now understand that you are basing your argument on the difference between Tai Ji and Tai Ji Quan (assuming the initial use in the OP and the advert recognised the difference as well).

OK, I understand your point as this: TJ is a aesthetic and degraded style based on original TJQ, utilising visual and auditory effects over practical useage. As such the swrods cannot be considered TJ swords because they are of a different quality/standard/type.

TJQ is a more practical style, utilising sword systems of a more practical nature, as well as utilising swords which were originally used in other styles, therefore are not wholly TJQ swords. As such, it is a misnomer to refer to them as TJ or TJQ swords.

Am I correct?

As for the "fencing" point, of course there are stylistic differences between Western and Chinese sword styles. However, not being familiar with the Chinese term(s) for opponent based combat swordplay, I chose to use a generic Western term.

My use of the term "fencing" is similar to the use of western terminology when describing Chinese swords as "sabres" etc (which would qualify it as "fencing"), or using the term "boxing", when referring to Chinese Boxing. I see no problem using the term "fencing" to mean swordplay against an opponent, especially when it is clear from the context that I do not refer to the different styles of western fencing.

So, does Jian-shu use combat/opponent-based sword-sparring? Also, is Jian-shu the same across different aspects of Wu Shu disciplines?

First and/or foremost, i have not considered anything I post as a "argument"

I view everything as a discussion

And, I did like the above post of yours.

The problem with martial arts, especially those of long history, is the misuse of their terms and methods

People tend to be complacent into reading or being told "one particular" thing and then someone finds out more info, esp that a little different, said "complacent people" are quick to dismiss

I became a martial art scholar some years after being a martial artist.